< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Jul-24-08|| ||offtherook: <JFQ> I vote for statement 5, as notions of "good" or "bad" delve into normative economics which is too subjective to be of much analytical value.|
However, I assume that your post was a sarcastic way of ridiculing <patzer2>'s links to Wikipedia. You might want to consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliab... or possibly read over http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds.... Wikipedia typically cites more traditionally reputable sources and is a decent source of basic information on many topics.
|Jul-24-08|| ||patzer2: <Offtherook> Look at number (5) above for the link which describes the characteristics of a mixed economy.|
Here's a sampling of those characteristics (of a mixed economy):
<Tax-funded, subsidized, or state-owned factors of production, infrastructure, and services:
-- libraries and other information services
-- roads and other transportation services
-- schools and other education services
-- hospitals and other health services
-- banks and other financial services
-- telephone, mail and other communication services
-- electricity and other energy services
-- water systems for drinking,
providing some autonomy over personal finances but including involuntary spending and investments such as transfer payments and other cash benefits such as:
--welfare for the poor
--social security for the aged and infirm
--government subsidies to business
--mandatory insurance (example: automobile)
and restricted by various laws, regulations:
-- environmental regulation
-- labor regulation including minimum wage laws
-- consumer regulation (example: product safety)
-- antitrust laws
-- intellectual property laws
-- incorporation laws
import and export controls, such as tarrifs and quotas
and taxes and fees written or enforced with manipulation of the economy>
I think you'll agree most of these characteristics of a "mixed economy" pertain to the U.S.
As an example of the need for "some government regulation of the economy" I would site the need for environmental consumer protection, anti-trust, and intellectual property laws. I would also site the need for the Federal Reserve to regulate the growth of money supply as just one of several examples of what I consider to be essential government control of our free-market, capitalistic economy.
However, my position is primarily that of Milton Friedman in stating that Government's role is primarily to provide rules for the game and a fair playing field for buyers and sellers in a free market economy. I would also assert that the U.S. government and most State governments have gone too far beyond that role, and we'd be far better off with less government bureaurcracy, less regulation and lower taxes.
|Jul-24-08|| ||patzer2: <jessicafischerqueen>|
My guess is that since you are a poster and would not insult yourself, or ever violate rule 3 of the posting guidelines, that you consider number 4 to be false.
|Jul-25-08|| ||patzer2: Personally, I think it's fantastic that Disney can produce or sell what the public is willing and able to to pay for without having to get permission from a socialist government bureaucracy.|
If my Grandson had lived in the former Soviet Union, he'd never have had a chance to go to Disney-world and get the Mickey Mouse toys which have brought him so much pleasure and enjoyment. Now that we've taken him to see this wonderful capitalistic attraction in Orlando, Florida, I can also take pride in the fact that we've also helped some poor people in China find employment.
P.S.: Here's one thing liberal activists can praise Disney for at http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto....
|Jul-25-08|| ||jessicafischerqueen: Hey I would never ridicule <Wikipedia>. |
It's kind of a speeded up version of a culture war over information.
In "better" encyclopedias- (Britannica?) it could be said that over time, certain entries are altered to suit changing cultural values and opinions.
This is true of many entries, such as the entry for the word "colonialism", for example.
However, <Wikipedia> is faster in this respect. Remember the <Dutch office workers> who spent a huge amount of their free time correcting and adding to chess entries on <Wiki>?
Or the <Pentagon> hiring people to alter the entries to conform more to thier taste?
<Patzer2>s response is the winner.
It is an ingenious effort-- it could be taken as literal or satirical- or even both.
Ok I vote for 4 as well.
In reality, I don't know which statements are untrue.
|Jul-25-08|| ||Ziggurat: <patzer2> Just a quibble, but surely Singapore and Hong Kong are considered to have freer economies than US/Australia/Canada. Maybe Estonia & Ireland, too.|
|Jul-25-08|| ||brankat: <...but surely Singapore and Hong Kong are considered to have freer economies than US/Australia/Canada. Maybe Estonia & Ireland, too.>|
Yes, and just about everybody else, too.
Btw, does anyone here know (approximately) how much money is currently being owed by the States to China and India (not to mention the others). If they were to call in the debt tomorrow, what do You think would happen?
<offtherook> <I mean, I've only had a pretty basic education in it<=economics> (6 semester hours of introductory courses)>
Yes, it certainly shows. It would be wise to learn more before expressing "opinions" that (for no good reason other than utter arrogance) already seem to be etched in stone.
And, yes, the same goes for your recent spitting all over concepts of "the alternative" medicine. Perhaps you should go through, and maybe even graduate one day from, a medical school first. Then try to have a few decades of practice.
Who knows, maybe You'll have some sort of an opinion then. Not necessarily the correct one, but at least an opinion.
|Jul-25-08|| ||patzer2: <ziggurat> <Just a quibble, but surely Singapore and Hong Kong are considered to have freer economies than US/Australia/Canada. Maybe Estonia & Ireland, too.> If you try to separate political freedom from economic freedom, perhaps you can make a case for some of those countries having a more "capitalistic free economy" than the U.S.A. However, when you combine the element of political freedom, and the strength of the guarantee of basic human rights (e.g. such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the protection of property rights), then the U.S.A., Canada and Australia IMO rate higher. Obviously, the degree of freedom one has from being arbitrarily thrown in jail and having one's property confiscated without due process for disagreeing with the ruling powers is obviously an important consideration when deciding whether to seek employment do business in a country. |
Hong Kong went from British rule and back under Chinese soverignty in 1997. Though there is an agreement that Hong Kong will remain somewhat independent for the next 39 years (50 years on the initial agreement), the apointment of the leader of Hong Kong must be approved by the central chinese government in Beijing. So, I don't put to much stock in the guarantee of political freedoms or human rights in Hong Kong -- at least not for the long-term future.
Even so, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_K..., <Hong Kong is one of the world's leading financial centres. Its highly capitalist economy, built on a policy of free markets, low taxation and government non-intervention, has been ranked as the most free economy in the world in the Index of Economic Freedom for 14 consecutive years.>
Singapore is apparently independent of China, however they are pretty much ruled by a one-party elite and the guarantee of basic human rights is suspect, as they don't offer jury trials and have laws restricting the freedom of speech.
Still, it is a very business friendly capitalistic economy. For example, according to <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor...;, <Singapore has been rated as the most business-friendly economy in the world.
According to a World Bank-IFC report, Singapore beats previous winner New Zealand for the top spot in the 2005/2006 rankings while the United States came in third.>
|Jul-25-08|| ||patzer2: I might add that the success of capitalism and sustained economic growth in Hong Kong and Singapore is a testemony to the effectiveness of of government policies which encourage the growth of private enterprise with low taxation and minimal bureaucratic red tape and regulation.|
From a purely economic perspective, U.S. politicians could learn much from Hong Kong and Singapore. Maybe one of our Presidential candidates could make a "fact-finding" trip there.
|Jul-25-08|| ||offtherook: <brankat:<offtherook> <I mean, I've only had a pretty basic education in it<=economics> (6 semester hours of introductory courses)>|
Yes, it certainly shows.>
Feel free to point out any inaccurate comments I have made. I don't feel like sinking into an ad hominem battle with you, so I will, for now, ignore the several glaring errors in your post.
|Jul-25-08|| ||Ziggurat: <patzer2> Well sure, I agree with you about the political freedoms - but I thought we were only discussing economical freedom.|
I happen to live in Singapore right now, although I am a European (I love the tax rates here :-)). Singapore has never belonged to China - it's located between Malaysia and Indonesia. It did at one point belong to the Malaya Federation, from which it was subsequently kicked out. Singapore and Hong Kong are both important ports and old British colonies, which is probably why they are associated in people's minds.
|Jul-25-08|| ||patzer2: <Ziggurat> Just curious. Are you considered a resident of Singapore? I notice the income tax rates listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxati... are quite a bit higher for nonresidents.|
|Jul-25-08|| ||patzer2: <Ziggurat> Did some more research just on the issue of economic freedom alone, and it turns out you are correct in rating Hong Kong and Singapore highest on economic benefit alone.|
The Heritage Foundation does an annual assessment, and they rate Hong Kong number one and Singapore number two. The U.S.A. comes up fifth on this rating.
The current Heritage Foundation world rankings of countries according to their degree of economic freedom can be viewed at http://www.heritage.org/research/fe....
P.S.: However, I would still argue you can't really separate political freedom and human rights from economic freedom. IMO the U.S.A. has the best combination of both economic and political freedoms.
|Dec-13-08|| ||DoubleCheck: 28. Bg4 Nb8(I think forced)
29. Rf7 wins
|Sep-06-09|| ||Knight13: Damn, Marx is actually pretty good!|
|Sep-19-09|| ||WhiteRook48: assuming it wasn't made up|
|Sep-19-09|| ||MaxxLange: today's Tom Sawyer!|
|Nov-26-09|| ||WhiteRook48: <if> this was real, Marx was pretty good at chess|
|Dec-08-09|| ||lost in space: Impressive game|
|Dec-08-09|| ||FHBradley: If this is real Marx, then my name is Meyer!|
|Nov-10-10|| ||mandy64: Black didn't play very well: 13..Re8 is better tha Rg8, and I can't understand the passive 17..d6. After 17..Nxc4 white's game is over.|
|Nov-29-11|| ||whiteshark: <offtherook: < fiat money ...>>|
Ahhh... remebers me of this little story:
A rich tourist enters the lobby in an small greece village.
< She deposits 100 Euro in the reception to go and take a look at the rooms.
< The hotel manager quickly takes the 100 Euro and runs to the slaughter to pay his debt.
< The slaughter goes to the farmer and pays his debt.>
< The farmer takes the money to the gas station and pays his debt.>
< Gas station manager goes to the local prostitute and pays his debt.>
< And the prostitute goes to the hotel and pays her 100 Euro debt.>
< The hotel manager puts the 100 Euro on the counter just as the tourist returns to the reception. >>>
She didn't like any of the rooms and takes her 100 Euro back.
The village is now happy and debt free...
|Sep-16-12|| ||master of defence: Isnīt 20...Rxf4 the best move for black?|
|Sep-16-12|| ||parisattack: He used the proletarian pawns well - but in the end the bourgeoisie pieces won for him.|
|Dec-08-15|| ||whiteshark: History repeats itself, 1st as tragedy, 2nd as farce.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·